MURRY WORONER, APPELLANT,
v.
IRA SOCHET, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed summary judgment for the promissory note holder, rejecting the defendant's defense of extension of time for payment and finding no genuine issue of material fact.
Summary judgment was properly entered for the plaintiff on a promissory note where the defendant failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding consideration for an alleged extension of payment.
[1] In an action on a promissory note, summary judgment is proper where the defendant fails to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding consideration for an alleg…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSochet sued Woroner on a negotiable promissory note. Woroner's sole defense was that the time for payment had been extended, but he failed to demonstr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Taxable Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant-appellant Woroner seeks review of an adverse final summary judgment and award of taxable costs entered in an action brought by plaintiff-appellee Sochet upon a negotiable promissory note.
Appellant contends: (1) entry of the adverse summary judgment herein was erroneous because of genuine issues of material fact, (2) denial of rehearing was improper (3) award of attorney fees and taxable costs constituted error. We do not agree, and affirm.
The sole defense to the suit on the promissory note was the extension of time for payment. We agree with the trial court that appellee demonstrated the non-existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Holl v. Talcott, Fla.1966, 191 So.2d 40, 43. We also agree that appellant’s pleadings, depositions and affidavits did not demonstrate the existence of an issue of material fact as to whether consideration for the extension was given. The additional affidavit contravened Rule 1.510(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A. See also: Hardcastle v. Mobley, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 715.
*297We find that the appellant’s contentions as to the denial of the rehearing and the awarding of attorney’s fees and taxable costs are without merit. Appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error as to his other arguments on appeal.
Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yunis v. Coral Gables First Nat'l Bank, 311 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…g Co. v. Skinner, 100 Fla. 315, 129 So. 759; McClendon v. Key, Fla.App.1968, 209 So. 2d 273; Page v. Staley, Fla.App. 1969, 226 So. 2d 129; Orthwein v. Cobbs Fruit & Preserving Company, Fla.App.1969, 229 So. 2d 607; Woroner v. Sochet, Fla.App. 1971, 251 So. 2d 296.…
-
Reisman v. Ferro, 330 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…e, we have carefully reviewed the record and agree with the trial court’s finding that no genuine issue of material fact existed. Absent such issue, appellee was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See, e. g., Woroner v. Sochet, Fla.App.1971, 251 So. 2d 296; Shafer & Miller v. Miami Heart Institute, Fla.App. 1970, 237 So. 2d 310; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals § 307, and 30 Fla.Jur., Summary Judgment § 12. We have considered the record, all points in the briefs, and arguments of counsel in light of the controlli…
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Hardcastle v. Mobley, 143 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)